14 replies to this topic

[dan2k]

I know this might sound like a stupid question to some of you, but I'm asking anyway.
What are some of the reasons why kerbs where added to race tracks?
I have always thought kerbs are there so when a car goes too far over the limit and touches the grass or dirt, the kerbs are there as a kind of cusion.
So the car doesn't touch the dirt or grass, which could spin the car or whatever.
You hear commentators say things like, "oh X is really using all the kerbs".
Most if not all of the race tracks these day require drivers to fully use the kerbs, to gain time.

But why are some kerbs (like Monza) made so that its really difficult for the car to go over.
The kerbs at Monza chicanes are bumpy, spiky, and could damage a cars undertray if the car goes over it too much too hard.
Why put kerbs there in the first place if you don't want drivers to use them?
Its obvious that some kerbs are designed so it discourages drivers from using them.
Why couldn't they just put a flat piece of tarmac there instead of kerbs?
By the way, I'm not agianst kerbs, I think its fun watching cars use them.

Can anybody tell me, when was kerbs first introduce in F1 or any other motorsports catagory?
And who came up with the idea?
Looking back at the 50 & 60's in F1, tracks didn't have any kerbs, and everyone did okay.
I mean, if F1 drivers are that good, they should be able to avoid the tires from touching the outside of the track and not depend on some kerbs to save them.

Lets say if all the kerbs at all the tracks F1 race at where removed, I think the lap times would really decrease.
Instead of adding more groves on tires or reducing aerodynamic on the cars, they should romove the kerbs, this will decrease cornering speed and top speed.
It might work, I don't know.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Honestly ive never understood why kerbs are there.

[Williams]

My theory: in areas where there is hard use of the edge of the circuit and where drivers would be tempted to take a bit of a shortcut (to use as much road as possible), there has to be something to discourage going over a certain point. This is because if the cars each, for example, went a bit over onto the grass on the outside or inside of a corner, that ground would rapidly deterioate during the race weekend, requiring the replacement of turf, soil etc. and creating dangerous potholes at the edge of the circuit. Putting some flat tarmac in that area to protect the ground would not work because the drivers would simply seek the edge of the tarmac as well. So not only does the edge of the circuit have to be protected by tarmac or concrete, it also has to discourage the drivers from veering to far off the proper circuit onto unpaved areas. Hence the somewhat uncomfortable curbs.

[Bex37]

Yep, they are meant to stop people from cutting corners. If the curbs weren't there, potholes would develop and dirt and grass would be dragged onto the circuit since it would be faster to cut the corner. I can think of a number of corners from my karting days where you could actually cut the corner and your inside wheels would have virtually no weight on them making the bumpy surface of the curb useless. Of course, the bumpy surface was meant to unsettle the handling of the kart when you touched it and make you slower, but sometimes the design just doesn't work.

Using the curbs has become is an accepted practice as it gains a bit of time in most cases. Curbs are supposed to be designed to discourage drivers from running over them. Its kind of accepted now that the curbs can really only be effective in discouraging drivers from dropping a wheel off the inside edge of the curb and into the dirt as the driver knows undertray damage is probable.

[unrepentant lurker]

Kerbs used to be really tall. I remember Piquet toolling around Hungaroring and the kerbs were nearly as tall as the wheels. Needless to say, the drivers just couldn't touch them or they would fly off the circuit.

Which is what happened to Rubens at Imola94. He hit the kerb at the chicane before the pit entry (the one thats not there anymore) and flew straight into the catch fencing. I think thats why the newer, freindlier kerbing nowadays.

Some places are trying to make the kerbs to much too handle. The final chicane at Montreal comes to mind. I think Rubens and Heidfeld got too much kerb there and they weren't able to recover in time.

[Indian Chief]

I wondered about these kerbs too. From video clips, I have noticed that most tracks didn't have kerbs in 1967, but several had kerbs by 1970.

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Honestly ive never understood why kerbs are there.

Actually we noticed that from your racepics with the Formula Palmer Audi car ;)

[Amadeus]

The kerbs are a lot friendlier to cars than the partially buried tyres that they had in the late 60's....

[wati]

Good point, Williams. Couldn't agree more.

Wattie

[Manson]

I saw this kart race once that was unbelievable. The leader was coming through this quick corner at the end of the straight with his outside wheels on the curbs (which weren't friendly either)! The guy in second was trying to pass him on the inside on the grass!!! I would say that was probably the best race I ever saw, period.

[dan2k]

Originally posted by Williams
My theory: in areas where there is hard use of the edge of the circuit and where drivers would be tempted to take a bit of a shortcut (to use as much road as possible), there has to be something to discourage going over a certain point. This is because if the cars each, for example, went a bit over onto the grass on the outside or inside of a corner, that ground would rapidly deterioate during the race weekend, requiring the replacement of turf, soil etc. and creating dangerous potholes at the edge of the circuit. Putting some flat tarmac in that area to protect the ground would not work because the drivers would simply seek the edge of the tarmac as well. So not only does the edge of the circuit have to be protected by tarmac or concrete, it also has to discourage the drivers from veering to far off the proper circuit onto unpaved areas. Hence the somewhat uncomfortable curbs.

Thanks Williams.
It makes sense to me now.
But if the drivers were to use the grass or dirt out side of the race track, wouldn't it be considered cheating?
But I guess it makes sense to have kerbs anyway, since drivers always try to use every milimetre of the track and it would sometimes drag dirt onto the track and you can't punish them for a little mistake like that.

Anyways, speaking of kerbs.
At the Suzuka GP qualifying this year I saw Montoya full on jump over the kerbs at the last chicane before the start/finish line, since the kerbs there are really high Montoya was able to fully launch his car with all 4 wheels off the ground.

[mika911]

I was thinking...try to imagine F1 without the curbs. It would certainly look a bit different.

[RJL]

Several years ago the oranizers at Monza tried stacking ties near the edges of those damn chicanes in yet anotehr attempt to keep the drivers from cutting the corners. the result? Several retirements including the leader, a certain D. Hill. Schumi managed to graze one and kept going for the win as I recall. So, I agree with Williams and the rest of you.

[MN]

Honda's new MOTEGI road course where they race touring cars(and maybe Formula Nippon(F3000)) don't have kerbs at all.
Honga wasn't too sure whether karbs are safe or not and intentionally didn't put karbs, just red paints only.
http://www.twinring....english/ms5.htm

[indysteve]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Honestly ive never understood why kerbs are there.

Ross, on another occasion, you said you loved kerbs (see this post). Perhaps kerbs are like women for you -- you love them but you don't really understand them!